Advocates of an Article V constitutional convention crow about every state legislative body that passes a resolution calling for such a convention. Chief among these cheerleaders is conservative talk-show host/entertainer Mark Levin.

During his daily radio show, Levin regularly reports on the success of states in signing on to the Article V roster. Curiously, however, there is one recent resolution that Levin has failed to flog.

On May 2, the state legislature of Vermont approved a measure making application for Congress To Call A Convention For Proposing Amendments To The U.s. [sic] Constitution.

Even a quick peek at the Vermont resolution reveals why Levin has uncharacteristically kept mum about it.

Vermonts call for a convention purports to limit that meeting to being conducted for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America that would limit the corrupting influence of money in our electoral process, including, inter alia, by overturning the Citizens United decision.

Surely even those self-professed conservatives in the Article V camp can see the folly of such language. In fact, it is likely that if they were at liberty to give their opinion without offending those bankrolling this movement, many of them would push hard to shove resolutions such as this one off of the Article V bandwagon.

In fact, some of those monied shot-callers may have been behind the alterations to the text that appear in the final version of the Vermont resolution.

As originally drafted, the proposal read as follows:

That the General Assembly, pursuant to Article V of the U.S. Constitution, hereby petitions the U.S. Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and be it further

Resolved: That not intending to condition this petition, Vermont requests that its specific concerns notwithstanding, the agenda of the convention be limited to those matters enumerated by at least 10 of the states calling for the convention.

Noticeably different, but not different enough to remove the fatal flaws.

There are so many potential loopholes in the Vermont measures language, each one large enough to allow radical repairs to our Constitution to squeeze through. (I have written elsewhere on the enormous and critical distinction between repairing the Constitution and restoring it.)

The John Birch Society has for decades been on the front line of the battle to prevent the Constitution from being opened up to the tinkering of con-con delegates that could be at best, inept, and at worst, purposefully aiming to alter our form of government and replace the current Constitution with something more progressive or democratic.

On its website devoted to providing educational resources regarding the movement to call a constitutional convention, The John Birch Society explains its position:

Many view a con-con as a quick way to pass amendments they think will stop the big-government juggernaut. Why would politicians suddenly start following an amended Constitution after ignoring and violating the Constitution for so long? The remedy so desperately needed to return our country to good government is to enforce the Constitution, not amend it.

Another disturbing aspect of the Vermont con-con resolution that might explain Levins silence is the way it leaves the gates of the Constitution wide open for radical leftists to get their adherents admitted to the convention like some sort of Trojan Horse.

As The New American first reported earlier this year, within the ranks of those clamoring for an Article V convention are found numerous extremely radical, progressive, and socialist organizations that otherwise would have little in common with the conservatives fighting on the same side.

Wolf-Pac is one of the groups that this reporter suspects many Levin listeners would be surprised to know is their compatriot in a call for a con-con.

On its website, Wolf-Pac pushes for an Article V convention of the states as the best way to accomplish its ultimate goal:

To restore true democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Representatives to pass a much needed 28th Amendment to our Constitution which would end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections in our country.

In order to persuade Americans to join its cause, Wolf-Pac will "inform the public by running television commercials, radio ads, social media, internet ads, and using the media platform of the largest online news show in the world, The Young Turks."

The Young Turks? Most constitutionalists (and one would imagine most fans of Mark Levin) dont spend much time during the day watching the Young Turks, the YouTube-based news and entertainment channel that dubs itself the worlds largest online news network.

For those Article V advocates unfamiliar with the Young Turks, but curious about the journalistic efforts of their fellow con-con collaborators, they should take a few minutes and watch some of their news reports. Warning: So much of it is vulgar, vile, and downright unwatchable.

Beyond the puerile content produced by this group, it is certain that conservatives pushing for a con-con are even more unfamiliar with who pays the bills so the Young Turks can pump out their videos: George Soros.

Dan Gainor reports:

In fact, Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the United States. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. That organization "is a network of the country's leading, progressive, independent media outlets." The list is predictable  everything from Alternet to the Young Turks.

George Soros  the financier of global fascism  is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen.

What will those in Wolf-Pac do if they are able to get their amendment proposed and accepted by an Article V convention?

Celebrate the fact that we had the courage and persistance [sic] to accomplish something truly amazing and historic together.

Anything a group with this anti-constitutional agenda would do to our Constitution would certainly be historic  in the worst way.

Finally, perhaps the most likely excuse for Levins deafening silence on the Vermont measure is the conflict of interest that would be exposed were he to familiarize his followers with the philosophical pretext laid out in the language of the Vermont resolution.

The resolution claims that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case has resulted in the corrupting influence of powerful economic forces, which have supplanted the will of the people by undermining our ability to choose our political leadership, write our own laws, and determine the fate of our State.

Setting aside the trite misunderstanding of the First Amendment displayed in that provision, the very mention of Citizens United in a derogatory way puts Levin in a difficult position vis à vis the Vermont measure.

Consider this news item published on the Citizens United website on March 7:

Conservative radio host Mark Levin accepted the first annual Citizens United Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday afternoon before a standing-room-only crowd of hundreds of conservative activists.

Admittedly, it would be hard for Levin to shake his fist at Citizens United with one hand and accept an award from that very organization with the other.

Apart from the uncomfortable conflicts of interest, the language of the Vermont con-con resolution provides a lesson for just the sort of serious damage that could be done should a convention be called and amendments be approved that leave this Republic unrecognizable to those who framed it and sacrificed all to secure its liberty.

Constitutionalists savvy to the serious dangers posed by an Article V constitutional convention are encouraged to seek out representatives of The John Birch Society for more information on this critical contemporary issue.

On Friday Vermont became the first state to call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which precipitated a flood of cash into politics.

Exactly. There's some Birchers in my Tea party group and they can never tell me HOW they will go about enforcing it while at the same time asking me how we would enforce any new amendments. They also say a convention would destroy the constitution while at the same time saying the constitution is being destroyed by Washington, D.C.! Apparently, no explanation is necessary on their side while they dismiss the explanations given by the Article V proponents.

It all sounds suspiciously like progressive disinformation and propaganda to me. They are advocating "business as usual" and that helps only the status-quo and the establishment elite in D.C.

Because the ultra-left has wanted this convention for as long as I can remember. I do not know what brand of Kool-Aid mark has been drinking, but this convention will see the complete undoing of our liberty.

I lost all respect for Mark when he failed to report on the BC issue in any meaningful manner, in fact he derided those who brought it up as if he was afraid, so he is either a coward or a moron.

You are exactly right—the argument about enforcing the amendments is fixed right in the amendments. The amendments that can get the support of the states and citizens to be enacted are those that shift power back toward the states and away from the fed govt. The fix to the problem of enforcement is clear—the fed won’t support citizens’ rights but the closer power gets to the citizens, the more those rights are likely to be protected.

Having Vermont propose an amendment that shifts power from non-govt groups to the fed govt (which is what it does)is what Vermont does. Vermont is more like Sweden than a state of the US. It no longer fits in the US and its interests will not have the support of the rest of the US. They might as well propose an amendment that maple syrup be legal tender. They are merely jokes to thinking people.

12
posted on 05/10/2014 11:54:39 AM PDT
by iacovatx
(Conservatism is the political center--it is not "right" of center)

I like Levin, but it looks to me like a country that could elect Obama a second time could very well screw up a Constitutional Convention. It’s not like we would have an exclusive rewrite. The Left would get so much crap in there it wouldn’t be funny. Entirely too risky. Better to insist the existing constitution be followed and the Federal government be reduced in size and scope.

19
posted on 05/10/2014 12:29:19 PM PDT
by bk1000
(A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)

George Soros  the financier of global fascism  is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other popular conservative spokesmen.

**********
Interesting. This “George Soros/pumping millions into the Art V campaign” meme is quite popular. Looky here how many time/places they’ve used it....

Because the ultra-left has wanted this convention for as long as I can remember. I do not know what brand of Kool-Aid mark has been drinking, but this convention will see the complete undoing of our liberty.

His Kool-Aid is a book he's selling. He needs to feather his nest as much as he can. As it is, the only reason he's on as many radio stations as he is is because cumulus typically makes most stations carry his show in order to get hannity's 3 hours of talentless dreck. But yeah, the people pushing for this con con are a pack of clueless morons who think that somehow a convention will magically be confined to what they want to happen.

21
posted on 05/10/2014 12:53:40 PM PDT
by Orangedog
(An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)

After hearing the same accusations, I went to the websites of about a dozen of the Soros funded organizations listed at the Bircher site.

Not one of the lunatic Left websites called for an Article V state convention to propose amendments. In my state of FL, the democrats were nearly united in opposition to the COS amendments. If Soros wants Article V, where are the soundbites from Pelosi and Reid? Where are the reliable mouthpieces from MSNBC?

Why would the Left bother with a state amendment convention when they have gotten their way since FDR?

22
posted on 05/10/2014 1:02:13 PM PDT
by Jacquerie
(By their oaths, it is the duty of state legislators to invoke Article V.)

Why would I want to read his marketing material? Why would I want to give any time to the merchandise of a constitutional “scholar” who has the same respect for the constitution that a high school quarterback has for his drunk prom date?

24
posted on 05/10/2014 1:15:41 PM PDT
by Orangedog
(An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)

And why would we expect these statist administrations to enforce even more conservative amendments?

Structural amendments, as proposed by Levin cannot be ignored. His amendments would not only re-federalize the government, they would make it more federal than the original design of our Framers. THAT is the only way to possibly restore our freedoms.

25
posted on 05/10/2014 1:19:28 PM PDT
by Jacquerie
(By their oaths, it is the duty of state legislators to invoke Article V.)

Vermont is only one of fifty states of which 34 states are needed to pass amendments to be put to the ratification process of which 38 states are required to ratify.

So of course the State of Vermont can propose anything they like but to advance their proposal they will need 33 other state cosigners, and then an even higher bar will be getting 37 other states to ratify Vermont’s proposed amendment to make it part of the Constitution.

The Article V Convention is a means of putting the ruling class on notice that the people have woken up and are not going to take it anymore. Congress itself could propose amendments but who do we trust more? The entrenched ruling class aristocracy or the friends and neighbors in the communities surrounding us where we live?

There will be Vermonts, and there will have to be 13 of them in total to stop the will of the People who use Article V to express their will.

The Progressive/Liberal group called "Move to Amend" is on board with Mark Levin.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

It’s Vermont and there’s no way they will carry 38 states to amend their progressive nonsense.

If you are scared by a few progressives in Vermont, then you might as well consider living in a cave somewhere. Because you will certainly not be kept free by the cabal that is the ruling class in Congress.

But 36 states will not be difficult to organize for some of the amendments that Mark Levin describes.

It is not a can of worms because it is so difficult to follow this path. There will be no can and no worms.

When Americans show a serious effort leading down the Article V path especially around an issue such as Obamacare, then the ruling class will fold just as they did for the 17th Amendment and the 18th Amendment. Congress becomes scared when the People take matters into their own hands, so what they do is jump in and take the process back into their hands. Just watch.

If the 17th amendment is repealed, how would the "statist" NOT enforce that change?

If repeal of the 17th amendment is the only ratified change then it will be worth it. Over time this change alone would begin to restore liberty by shifting power back to the states. Repeal of the 17th, will also have the effect of term limits and would make lifetime celebrity senators extinct.

The problem with statements like "no one is enforcing the Constitution we have" is that it's simply not true. The Constitution can not and is not being ignored in this country. What is happening is the left is finding loopholes and weaknesses in some of the wording and exploiting those weaknesses.

Simple changes to the constitution can slam the door shut on the left. Repeal the 17th, remove the commerce clause, clarify the wording of the 2nd. etc.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.